Showing papers in "Lancet Oncology in 2013"

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial

Abstract: Summary Background Laparoscopic surgery as an alternative to open surgery in patients with rectal cancer has not yet been shown to be oncologically safe. The aim in the COlorectal cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR II) trial was to compare laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer. Methods A non-inferiority phase 3 trial was undertaken at 30 centres and hospitals in eight countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with rectal cancer within 15 cm from the anal verge without evidence of distant metastases were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic or open surgery in a 2:1 ratio, stratified by centre, location of tumour, and preoperative radiotherapy. The study was not masked. Secondary (short-term) outcomes—including operative findings, complications, mortality, and results at pathological examination—are reported here. Analysis was by modified intention to treat, excluding those patients with post-randomisation exclusion criteria and for whom data were not available. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00297791. Findings The study was undertaken between Jan 20, 2004, and May 4, 2010. 1103 patients were randomly assigned to the laparoscopic (n=739) and open surgery groups (n=364), and 1044 were eligible for analyses (699 and 345, respectively). Patients in the laparoscopic surgery group lost less blood than did those in the open surgery group (median 200 mL [IQR 100–400] vs 400 mL [200–700], p vs 188 min [150–240]; p vs 3·0 days [2·0–4·0]; p vs 9·0 days [7·0–14·0]; p=0·036). Macroscopically, completeness of the resection was not different between groups (589 [88%] of 666 vs 303 [92%] of 331; p=0·250). Positive circumferential resection margin ( vs 3·0 cm [1·8–5·0], respectively; p=0·676). In the laparoscopic and open surgery groups, morbidity (278 [40%] of 697 vs 128 [37%] of 345, respectively; p=0·424) and mortality (eight [1%] of 699 vs six [2%] of 345, respectively; p=0·409) within 28 days after surgery were similar. Interpretation In selected patients with rectal cancer treated by skilled surgeons, laparoscopic surgery resulted in similar safety, resection margins, and completeness of resection to that of open surgery, and recovery was improved after laparoscopic surgery. Results for the primary endpoint—locoregional recurrence—are expected by the end of 2013. Funding Ethicon Endo-Surgery Europe, Swedish Cancer Foundation, West Gothia Region, Sahlgrenska University Hospital.

Air pollution and lung cancer incidence in 17 European cohorts : Prospective analyses from the European Study of Cohorts for Air Pollution Effects (ESCAPE)

Abstract: Summary Background Ambient air pollution is suspected to cause lung cancer. We aimed to assess the association between long-term exposure to ambient air pollution and lung cancer incidence in European populations. Methods This prospective analysis of data obtained by the European Study of Cohorts for Air Pollution Eff ects used data from 17 cohort studies based in nine European countries. Baseline addresses were geocoded and we assessed air pollution by land-use regression models for particulate matter (PM) with diameter of less than 10 μm (PM10), less than 2·5 μm (PM2·5), and between 2·5 and 10 μm (PMcoarse), soot (PM2·5absorbance), nitrogen oxides, and two traffi c indicators. We used Cox regression models with adjustment for potential confounders for cohort-specifi c analyses and random eff ects models for meta-analyses. Findings The 312 944 cohort members contributed 4 013 131 person-years at risk. During follow-up (mean 12·8 years), 2095 incident lung cancer cases were diagnosed. The meta-analyses showed a statistically signifi cant association between risk for lung cancer and PM10 (hazard ratio [HR] 1·22 [95% CI 1·03–1·45] per 10 μg/m³). For PM2·5 the HR was 1·18 (0·96–1·46) per 5 μg/m³. The same increments of PM10 and PM2·5 were associated with HRs for adenocarcinomas of the lung of 1·51 (1·10–2·08) and 1·55 (1·05–2·29), respectively. An increase in road traffi c of 4000 vehicle-km per day within 100 m of the residence was associated with an HR for lung cancer of 1·09 (0·99–1·21). The results showed no association between lung cancer and nitrogen oxides concentration (HR 1·01 [0·95–1·07] per 20 μg/m³) or traffi c intensity on the nearest street (HR 1·00 [0·97–1·04] per 5000 vehicles per day).

Incidence of unilateral arm lymphoedema after breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: Summary Background The body of evidence related to breast-cancer-related lymphoedema incidence and risk factors has substantially grown and improved in quality over the past decade. We assessed the incidence of unilateral arm lymphoedema after breast cancer and explored the evidence available for lymphoedema risk factors. Methods We searched Academic Search Elite, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (clinical trials), and Medline for research articles that assessed the incidence or prevalence of, or risk factors for, arm lymphoedema after breast cancer, published between Jan 1, 2000, and June 30, 2012. We extracted incidence data and calculated corresponding exact binomial 95% CIs. We used random effects models to calculate a pooled overall estimate of lymphoedema incidence, with subgroup analyses to assess the effect of different study designs, countries of study origin, diagnostic methods, time since diagnosis, and extent of axillary surgery. We assessed risk factors and collated them into four levels of evidence, depending on consistency of findings and quality and quantity of studies contributing to findings. Findings 72 studies met the inclusion criteria for the assessment of lymphoedema incidence, giving a pooled estimate of 16·6% (95% CI 13·6–20·2). Our estimate was 21·4% (14·9–29·8) when restricted to data from prospective cohort studies (30 studies). The incidence of arm lymphoedema seemed to increase up to 2 years after diagnosis or surgery of breast cancer (24 studies with time since diagnosis or surgery of 12 to Interpretation Our findings suggest that more than one in five women who survive breast cancer will develop arm lymphoedema. A clear need exists for improved understanding of contributing risk factors, as well as of prevention and management strategies to reduce the individual and public health burden of this disabling and distressing disorder. Funding The National Breast Cancer Foundation, Australia.

The UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) trials of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: 10-year follow-up results of two randomised controlled trials

Abstract: Summary Background 5-year results of the UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) trials suggested that lower total doses of radiotherapy delivered in fewer, larger doses (fractions) are at least as safe and effective as the historical standard regimen (50 Gy in 25 fractions) for women after primary surgery for early breast cancer. In this prespecified analysis, we report the 10-year follow-up of the START trials testing 13 fraction and 15 fraction regimens. Methods From 1999 to 2002, women with completely excised invasive breast cancer (pT1–3a, pN0–1, M0) were enrolled from 35 UK radiotherapy centres. Patients were randomly assigned to a treatment regimen after primary surgery followed by chemotherapy and endocrine treatment (where prescribed). Randomisation was computer-generated and stratified by centre, type of primary surgery (breast-conservation surgery or mastectomy), and tumour bed boost radiotherapy. In START-A, a regimen of 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks was compared with 41·6 Gy or 39 Gy in 13 fractions over 5 weeks. In START-B, a regimen of 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks was compared with 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks. Eligibility criteria included age older than 18 years and no immediate surgical reconstruction. Primary endpoints were local-regional tumour relapse and late normal tissue effects. Analysis was by intention to treat. Follow-up data are still being collected. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN59368779. Findings START-A enrolled 2236 women. Median follow-up was 9·3 years (IQR 8·0–10·0), after which 139 local-regional relapses had occurred. 10-year rates of local-regional relapse did not differ significantly between the 41·6 Gy and 50 Gy regimen groups (6·3%, 95% CI 4·7–8·5 vs 7·4%, 5·5–10·0; hazard ratio [HR] 0·91, 95% CI 0·59–1·38; p=0·65) or the 39 Gy (8·8%, 95% CI 6·7–11·4) and 50 Gy regimen groups (HR 1·18, 95% CI 0·79–1·76; p=0·41). In START-A, moderate or marked breast induration, telangiectasia, and breast oedema were significantly less common normal tissue effects in the 39 Gy group than in the 50 Gy group. Normal tissue effects did not differ significantly between 41·6 Gy and 50 Gy groups. START-B enrolled 2215 women. Median follow-up was 9·9 years (IQR 7·5–10·1), after which 95 local-regional relapses had occurred. The proportion of patients with local-regional relapse at 10 years did not differ significantly between the 40 Gy group (4·3%, 95% CI 3·2–5·9) and the 50 Gy group (5·5%, 95% CI 4·2–7·2; HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·51–1·16; p=0·21). In START-B, breast shrinkage, telangiectasia, and breast oedema were significantly less common normal tissue effects in the 40 Gy group than in the 50 Gy group. Interpretation Long-term follow-up confirms that appropriately dosed hypofractionated radiotherapy is safe and effective for patients with early breast cancer. The results support the continued use of 40 Gy in 15 fractions, which has already been adopted by most UK centres as the standard of care for women requiring adjuvant radiotherapy for invasive early breast cancer. Funding Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, UK Department of Health.

Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy in patients with breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (SENTINA): a prospective, multicentre cohort study

Abstract: Summary Background The optimum timing of sentinel-lymph-node biopsy for breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy is uncertain. The SENTINA (SENTinel NeoAdjuvant) study was designed to evaluate a specific algorithm for timing of a standardised sentinel-lymph-node biopsy procedure in patients who undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Methods SENTINA is a four-arm, prospective, multicentre cohort study undertaken at 103 institutions in Germany and Austria. Women with breast cancer who were scheduled for neoadjuvant chemotherapy were enrolled into the study. Patients with clinically node-negative disease (cN0) underwent sentinel-lymph-node biopsy before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arm A). If the sentinel node was positive (pN1), a second sentinel-lymph-node biopsy procedure was done after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arm B). Women with clinically node-positive disease (cN+) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Those who converted to clinically node-negative disease after chemotherapy (ycN0; arm C) were treated with sentinel-lymph-node biopsy and axillary dissection. Only patients whose clinical nodal status remained positive (ycN1) underwent axillary dissection without sentinel-lymph-node biopsy (arm D). The primary endpoint was accuracy (false-negative rate) of sentinel-lymph-node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients who converted from cN1 to ycN0 disease during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arm C). Secondary endpoints included comparison of the detection rate of sentinel-lymph-node biopsy before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and also the false-negative rate and detection rate of sentinel-lymph-node biopsy after removal of the sentinel lymph node. Analyses were done according to treatment received (per protocol). Findings Of 1737 patients who received treatment, 1022 women underwent sentinel-lymph-node biopsy before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arms A and B), with a detection rate of 99·1% (95% CI 98·3–99·6; 1013 of 1022). In patients who converted after neoadjuvant chemotherapy from cN+ to ycN0 (arm C), the detection rate was 80·1% (95% CI 76·6–83·2; 474 of 592) and false-negative rate was 14·2% (95% CI 9·9–19·4; 32 of 226). The false-negative rate was 24·3% (17 of 70) for women who had one node removed and 18·5% (10 of 54) for those who had two sentinel nodes removed (arm C). In patients who had a second sentinel-lymph-node biopsy procedure after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arm B), the detection rate was 60·8% (95% CI 55·6–65·9; 219 of 360) and the false-negative rate was 51·6% (95% CI 38·7–64·2; 33 of 64). Interpretation Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy is a reliable diagnostic method before neoadjuvant chemotherapy. After systemic treatment or early sentinel-lymph-node biopsy, the procedure has a lower detection rate and a higher false-negative rate compared with sentinel-lymph-node biopsy done before neoadjuvant chemotherapy. These limitations should be considered if biopsy is planned after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Funding Brustkrebs Deutschland, German Society for Senology, German Breast Group.

Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with sentinel-node micrometastases (IBCSG 23–01): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial

Abstract: Summary Background For patients with breast cancer and metastases in the sentinel nodes, axillary dissection has been standard treatment. However, for patients with limited sentinel-node involvement, axillary dissection might be overtreatment. We designed IBCSG trial 23–01 to determine whether no axillary dissection was non-inferior to axillary dissection in patients with one or more micrometastatic (≤2 mm) sentinel nodes and tumour of maximum 5 cm. Methods In this multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial, patients were eligible if they had clinically non-palpable axillary lymph node(s) and a primary tumour of 5 cm or less and who, after sentinel-node biopsy, had one or more micrometastatic (≤2 mm) sentinel lymph nodes with no extracapsular extension. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to either undergo axillary dissection or not to undergo axillary dissection. Randomisation was stratified by centre and menopausal status. Treatment assignment was not masked. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. Non-inferiority was defined as a hazard ratio (HR) of less than 1·25 for no axillary dissection versus axillary dissection. The analysis was by intention to treat. Per protocol, disease and survival information continues to be collected yearly. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00072293. Findings Between April 1, 2001, and Feb 28, 2010, 465 patients were randomly assigned to axillary dissection and 469 to no axillary dissection. After the exclusion of three patients, 464 patients were in the axillary dissection group and 467 patients were in the no axillary dissection group. After a median follow-up of 5·0 (IQR 3·6–7·3) years, we recorded 69 disease-free survival events in the axillary dissection group and 55 events in the no axillary dissection group. Breast-cancer-related events were recorded in 48 patients in the axillary dissection group and 47 in the no axillary dissection group (ten local recurrences in the axillary dissection group and eight in the no axillary dissection group; three and nine contralateral breast cancers; one and five regional recurrences; and 34 and 25 distant relapses). Other non-breast cancer events were recorded in 21 patients in the axillary dissection group and eight in the no axillary dissection group (20 and six second non-breast malignancies; and one and two deaths not due to a cancer event). 5-year disease-free survival was 87·8% (95% CI 84·4–91·2) in the group without axillary dissection and 84·4% (80·7–88·1) in the group with axillary dissection (log-rank p=0·16; HR for no axillary dissection vs axillary dissection was 0·78, 95% CI 0·55–1·11, non-inferiority p=0·0042). Patients with reported long-term surgical events (grade 3–4) included one sensory neuropathy (grade 3), three lymphoedema (two grade 3 and one grade 4), and three motor neuropathy (grade 3), all in the group that underwent axillary dissection, and one grade 3 motor neuropathy in the group without axillary dissection. One serious adverse event was reported, a postoperative infection in the axilla in the group with axillary dissection. Interpretation Axillary dissection could be avoided in patients with early breast cancer and limited sentinel-node involvement, thus eliminating complications of axillary surgery with no adverse effect on survival. Funding None.

Continuation of bevacizumab after first progression in metastatic colorectal cancer (ML18147): a randomised phase 3 trial

Abstract: Summary Background Bevacizumab plus fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy is standard treatment for first-line and bevacizumab-naive second-line metastatic colorectal cancer. We assessed continued use of bevacizumab plus standard second-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer progressing after standard first-line bevacizumab-based treatment. Methods In an open-label, phase 3 study in 220 centres in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland, patients (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable, histologically confirmed metastatic colorectal cancer progressing up to 3 months after discontinuing first-line bevacizumab plus chemotherapy were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to second-line chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab 2·5 mg/kg per week equivalent (either 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks, intravenously). The choice between oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based second-line chemotherapy depended on the first-line regimen (switch of chemotherapy). A combination of a permuted block design and the Pocock and Simon minimisation algorithm was used for the randomisation. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00700102. Findings Between Feb 1, 2006, and June 9, 2010, 409 (50%) patients were assigned to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy and 411 (50%) to chemotherapy alone. Median follow-up was 11·1 months (IQR 6·4–15·6) in the bevacizumab plus chemotherapy group and 9·6 months (5·4–13·9) in the chemotherapy alone group. Median overall survival was 11·2 months (95% CI 10·4–12·2) for bevacizumab plus chemotherapy and 9·8 months (8·9–10·7) for chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·69–0·94; unstratified log-rank test p=0·0062). Grade 3–5 bleeding or haemorrhage (eight [2%] vs one [ vs three [ vs 12 [3%]) were more common in the bevacizumab plus chemotherapy group than in the chemotherapy alone group. The most frequently reported grade 3–5 adverse events were neutropenia (65 [16%] in the bevacizumab and chemotherapy group vs 52 [13%] in the chemotherapy alone group), diarrhoea (40 [10%] vs 34 [8%], respectively), and asthenia (23 [6%] vs 17 [4%], respectively). Treatment-related deaths were reported for four patients in the bevacizumab plus chemotherapy group and three in the chemotherapy alone group. Interpretation Maintenance of VEGF inhibition with bevacizumab plus standard second-line chemotherapy beyond disease progression has clinical benefits in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. This approach is also being investigated in other tumour types, including metastatic breast and non-small cell lung cancers. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Perioperative FOLFOX4 chemotherapy and surgery versus surgery alone for resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer (EORTC 40983) : long-term results of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

Abstract: Summary Background Previous results of the EORTC intergroup trial 40983 showed that perioperative chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) increases progression-free survival (PFS) compared with surgery alone for patients with initially resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Here we present overall survival data after long-term follow-up. Methods This randomised, controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 study recruited patients from 78 hospitals across Europe, Australia, and Hong Kong. Eligible patients aged 18–80 years who had histologically proven colorectal cancer and up to four liver metastases were randomly assigned (1:1) to either perioperative FOLFOX4 or surgery alone. Perioperative FOLFOX4 consisted of six 14-day cycles of oxaliplatin 85mg/m 2 , folinic acid 200 mg/m 2 (DL form) or 100 mg/m 2 (L form) on days 1–2 plus bolus, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m 2 (bolus) and 600 mg/m 2 (continuous 22 h infusion), before and after surgery. Patients were centrally randomised by minimisation, adjusting for centre and risk score and previous adjuvant chemotherapy to primary surgery for colorectal cancer, and the trial was open label. Analysis of overall survival was by intention to treat in all randomly assigned patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00006479. Findings Between Oct 10, 2000, and July 5, 2004, 364 patients were randomly assigned to a treatment group (182 patients in each group, of which 171 per group were eligible and 152 per group underwent resection). At a median follow-up of 8·5 years (IQR 7·6–9·5), 107 (59%) patients in the perioperative chemotherapy group had died versus 114 (63%) in the surgery-only group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·68–1·14; p=0·34). In all randomly assigned patients, median overall survival was 61·3 months (95% CI 51·0–83·4) in the perioperative chemotherapy group and 54·3 months (41·9–79·4) in the surgery alone group. 5-year overall survival was 51·2% (95% CI 43·6–58·3) in the perioperative chemotherapy group versus 47·8% (40·3–55·0) in the surgery-only group. Two patients in the perioperative chemotherapy group and three in the surgery-only group died from complications of protocol surgery, and one patient in the perioperative chemotherapy group died possibly as a result of toxicity of protocol treatment. Interpretation We found no difference in overall survival with the addition of perioperative chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 compared with surgery alone for patients with resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer. However, the previously observed benefit in PFS means that perioperative chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 should remain the reference treatment for this population of patients. Funding Norwegian and Swedish Cancer Societies, Cancer Research UK, Ligue Nationale Contre Cancer, US National Cancer Institute, Sanofi-Aventis.

Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (CLEOPATRA study): overall survival results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study

Abstract: Summary Background CLEOPATRA is a phase 3 study to compare the efficacy and safety of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel with placebo, trastuzumab, and docetaxel in patients with HER2-positive first-line metastatic breast cancer. The results of the primary analysis showed significantly longer median progression-free survival in the pertuzumab group than in the placebo group. Interim analysis of overall survival favoured the pertuzumab group but was not significant. Here, we report results for overall survival after an additional year of follow-up. Methods The study was a double-blind randomised trial undertaken at 204 centres in 25 countries. Patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who had not received previous chemotherapy or biological treatment for their metastatic disease were randomly assigned to receive either pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel (n=402) or the same regimen with a matching placebo replacing pertuzumab (n=406). Randomisation was in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by geographical region and previous treatment status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (assessed independently), which has been reported previously; no follow-up data were gathered for the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, progression-free survival (assessed by investigator), objective response rate, and safety. Median follow-up was 30 months in both groups. Efficacy endpoints were analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed by treatment received. The study is completed but safety and survival data continue to be followed up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00567190. Findings In the intention-to-treat population, 267 patients died by data cutoff (May 14, 2012), 154 (38%) of 406 in the placebo group and 113 (28%) of 402 in the pertuzumab group. Median overall survival was 37·6 months (95% CI 34·3–NE [not estimable]) in the placebo group but had not been reached (95% CI 42·4–NE) in the pertuzumab group (hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·52–0·84; p=0·0008). Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was 12·4 months (95% CI 10·4–13·5) in the placebo group and 18·7 months (16·6–21·6) in the pertuzumab group (hazard ratio 0·69, 95% CI 0·58–0·81). Serious adverse events were reported in 115 (29%) of 396 patients who received placebo, trastuzumab, and docetaxel and 148 (36%) of 408 who received pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel, and included febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, diarrhoea, pneumonia, and cellulitis. Overall, adverse events were similar to those reported at the primary analysis with respect to frequency, severity, and specificity. Interpretation Our analysis shows a significant improvement in overall survival with pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, compared with placebo, trastuzumab, and docetaxel. Since this effect was not achieved at the expense of adverse events, this regimen represents a substantial improvement on the standard of care for this population of patients. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech.

Economic burden of cancer across the European Union: a population-based cost analysis

Abstract: Summary Background In 2008, 2·45 million people were diagnosed with cancer and 1·23 million died because of cancer in the 27 countries of the European Union (EU). We aimed to estimate the economic burden of cancer in the EU. Methods In a population-based cost analysis, we evaluated the cost of all cancers and also those associated with breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers. We obtained country-specific aggregate data for morbidity, mortality, and health-care resource use from international and national sources. We estimated health-care costs from expenditure on care in the primary, outpatient, emergency, and inpatient settings, and also drugs. Additionally, we estimated the costs of unpaid care provided by relatives or friends of patients (ie, informal care), lost earnings after premature death, and costs associated with individuals who temporarily or permanently left employment because of illness. Findings Cancer cost the EU €126 billion in 2009, with health care accounting for €51·0 billion (40%). Across the EU, the health-care costs of cancer were equivalent to €102 per citizen, but varied substantially from €16 per person in Bulgaria to €184 per person in Luxembourg. Productivity losses because of early death cost €42·6 billion and lost working days €9·43 billion. Informal care cost €23·2 billion. Lung cancer had the highest economic cost (€18·8 billion, 15% of overall cancer costs), followed by breast cancer (€15·0 billion, 12%), colorectal cancer (€13·1 billion, 10%), and prostate cancer (€8·43 billion, 7%). Interpretation Our results show wide differences between countries, the reasons for which need further investigation. These data contribute to public health and policy intelligence, which is required to deliver affordable cancer care systems and inform effective public research funds allocation. Funding Pfizer.

External validation and comparison with other models of the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium prognostic model: a population-based study

Abstract: Summary Background The International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model offers prognostic information for patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. We tested the accuracy of the model in an external population and compared it with other prognostic models. Methods We included patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were treated with first-line VEGF-targeted treatment at 13 international cancer centres and who were registered in the Consortium's database but had not contributed to the initial development of the Consortium Database model. The primary endpoint was overall survival. We compared the Database Consortium model with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF) model, the International Kidney Cancer Working Group (IKCWG) model, the French model, and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) model by concordance indices and other measures of model fit. Findings Overall, 1028 patients were included in this study, of whom 849 had complete data to assess the Database Consortium model. Median overall survival was 18·8 months (95% 17·6–21·4). The predefined Database Consortium risk factors (anaemia, thrombocytosis, neutrophilia, hypercalcaemia, Karnofsky performance status Interpretation The Database Consortium model is now externally validated and can be applied to stratify patients by risk in clinical trials and to counsel patients about prognosis. Funding None.

Capecitabine and cisplatin with or without cetuximab for patients with previously untreated advanced gastric cancer (EXPAND): a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial

Abstract: Summary Background Patients with advanced gastric cancer have a poor prognosis and few efficacious treatment options. We aimed to assess the addition of cetuximab to capecitabine-cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer. Methods In our open-label, randomised phase 3 trial (EXPAND), we enrolled adults aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed locally advanced unresectable (M0) or metastatic (M1) adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastro-oesophageal junction. We enrolled patients at 164 sites (teaching hospitals and clinics) in 25 countries, and randomly assigned eligible participants (1:1) to receive first-line chemotherapy with or without cetuximab. Randomisation was done with a permuted block randomisation procedure (variable block size), stratified by disease stage (M0 vs M1), previous oesophagectomy or gastrectomy (yes vs no), and previous (neo)adjuvant (radio)chemotherapy (yes vs no). Treatment consisted of 3-week cycles of twice-daily capecitabine 1000 mg/m 2 (on days 1–14) and intravenous cisplatin 80 mg/m 2 (on day 1), with or without weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m 2 initial infusion on day 1 followed by 250 mg/m 2 per week thereafter). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), assessed by a masked independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered at EudraCT, number 2007-004219-75. Findings Between June 30, 2008, and Dec 15, 2010, we enrolled 904 patients. Median PFS for 455 patients allocated capecitabine-cisplatin plus cetuximab was 4·4 months (95% CI 4·2–5·5) compared with 5·6 months (5·1–5·7) for 449 patients who were allocated to receive capecitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·92–1·29; p=0·32). 369 (83%) of 446 patients in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group and 337 (77%) of 436 patients in the chemotherapy group had grade 3–4 adverse events, including grade 3–4 diarrhoea, hypokalaemia, hypomagnesaemia, rash, and hand-foot syndrome. Grade 3–4 neutropenia was more common in controls than in patients who received cetuximab. Incidence of grade 3–4 skin reactions and acne-like rash was substantially higher in the cetuximab-containing regimen than in the control regimen. 239 (54%) of 446 in the cetuximab group and 194 (44%) of 436 in the control group had any grade of serious adverse event. Interpretation Addition of cetuximab to capecitabine-cisplatin provided no additional benefit to chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer in our trial. Funding Merck KGaA.

Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study.

Abstract: Summary Background Digital breast tomosynthesis with 3D images might overcome some of the limitations of conventional 2D mammography for detection of breast cancer. We investigated the effect of integrated 2D and 3D mammography in population breast-cancer screening. Methods Screening with Tomosynthesis OR standard Mammography (STORM) was a prospective comparative study. We recruited asymptomatic women aged 48 years or older who attended population-based breast-cancer screening through the Trento and Verona screening services (Italy) from August, 2011, to June, 2012. We did screen-reading in two sequential phases—2D only and integrated 2D and 3D mammography—yielding paired data for each screen. Standard double-reading by breast radiologists determined whether to recall the participant based on positive mammography at either screen read. Outcomes were measured from final assessment or excision histology. Primary outcome measures were the number of detected cancers, the number of detected cancers per 1000 screens, the number and proportion of false positive recalls, and incremental cancer detection attributable to integrated 2D and 3D mammography. We compared paired binary data with McNemar's test. Findings 7292 women were screened (median age 58 years [IQR 54–63]). We detected 59 breast cancers (including 52 invasive cancers) in 57 women. Both 2D and integrated 2D and 3D screening detected 39 cancers. We detected 20 cancers with integrated 2D and 3D only versus none with 2D screening only (p Interpretation Integrated 2D and 3D mammography improves breast-cancer detection and has the potential to reduce false positive recalls. Randomised controlled trials are needed to compare integrated 2D and 3D mammography with 2D mammography for breast cancer screening. Funding National Breast Cancer Foundation, Australia; National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia; Hologic, USA; Technologic, Italy.

Cytokine patterns in patients with cancer: a systematic review

Abstract: Summary Active, but dysfunctional, immune responses in patients with cancer have been studied in several tumour types, but owing to the heterogeneity of cancer theories of common reaction mechanisms seem to be obsolete. In this Review of published clinical studies of patients with cancer, expression and interplay of the following cytokines are examined: interleukin 2, interleukin 6, interleukin 8, interleukin 10, interleukin 12, interleukin 18, tumour necrosis factor α (TNFα), transforming growth factor β (TGFβ), interferon-γ, HLA-DR, macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF), and C-X-C motif chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4). Clinical data were analysed in a non-quantitative descriptive manner and interpreted with regard to experimentally established physiological cytokine interactions. The clinical cytokine pattern that emerged suggests that simultaneous immunostimulation and immunosuppression occur in patients with cancer, with increased concentrations of the cytokines MIF, TNFα, interleukin 6, interleukin 8, interleukin 10, interleukin 18, and TGFβ. This specific cytokine pattern seems to have a prognostic effect, since high interleukin 6 or interleukin 10 serum concentrations are associated with negative prognoses in independent cancer types. Although immunostimulatory cytokines are involved in local cancer-associated inflammation, cancer cells seem to be protected from immunological eradication by cytokine-mediated local immunosuppression and a resulting defect of the interleukin 12–interferon-γ–HLA-DR axis. Cytokines produced by tumours might have a pivotal role in this defect. A working hypothesis is that the cancer-specific and histology-independent uniform cytokine cascade is one of the manifestations of the underlying paraneoplastic systemic disease, and this hypothesis links the stage of cancer with both the functional status of the immune system and the patient's prognosis. Neutralisation of this cytokine pattern could offer novel and so far unexploited treatment approaches for cancer.

Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone versus high-dose dexamethasone alone for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM-003): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Abstract: Summary Background Few eff ective treatments exist for patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma not responding to treatment with bortezomib and lenalidomide. Pomalidomide alone has shown limited effi cacy in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, but synergistic eff ects have been noted when combined with dexamethasone. We compared the effi cacy and safety of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone with high-dose dexamethasone alone in these patients. Methods This multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial was undertaken in Australia, Canada, Europe, Russia, and the USA. Patients were eligible if they had been diagnosed with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, and had failed at least two previous treatments of bortezomib and lenalidomide. They were assigned in a 2:1 ratio with a validated interactive voice and internet response system to either 28 day cycles of pomalidomide (4 mg/day on days 1–21, orally) plus low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg/day on days 1, 8, 15, and 22, orally) or high-dose dexamethasone (40 mg/day on days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20, orally) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity . Stratifi cation factors were age (≤75 years vs >75 years), disease population (refractory vs relapsed and refractory vs bortezomib intolerant), and number of previous treatments (two vs more than two). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01311687, and with EudraCT, number 2010-019820-30. Findings The accrual for the study has been completed and the analyses are presented. 302 patients were randomly assigned to receive pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and 153 high-dose dexamethasone. After a median follow-up of 10·0 months (IQR 7·2–13·2), median PFS with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone was 4·0 months (95% CI 3·6–4·7) versus 1·9 months (1·9–2·2) with high-dose dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0·48 [95% CI 0·39–0·60]; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3–4 haematological adverse events in the pomalidomide plus lowdose dexamethasone and high-dose dexamethasone groups were neutropenia (143 [48%] of 300 vs 24 [16%] of 150, respectively), anaemia (99 [33%] vs 55 [37%], respectively), and thrombocytopenia (67 [22%] vs 39 [26%], respectively). Grade 3–4 non-haematological adverse events in the pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and high-dose dexamethasone groups included pneumonia (38 [13%] vs 12 [8%], respectively), bone pain (21 [7%] vs seven [5%], respectively), and fatigue (16 [5%] vs nine [6%], respectively). There were 11 (4%) treatment-related adverse events leading to death in the pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone group and seven (5%) in the high-dose dexamethasone group.

Axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: overall survival analysis and updated results from a randomised phase 3 trial

Abstract: Summary Background In a phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, patients given axitinib had a longer progression-free survival (PFS). Here, we report overall survival and updated efficacy, quality of life, and safety results. Methods Eligible patients had clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma, progressive disease after one approved systemic treatment, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0–1. 723 patients were stratified by ECOG PS and previous treatment and randomly allocated (1:1) to receive axitinib (5 mg twice daily; n=361) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily; n=362). The primary endpoint was PFS assessed by a masked, independent radiology review committee. We assessed patient-reported outcomes using validated questionnaires. Baseline characteristics and development of hypertension on treatment were studied as prognostic factors. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This ongoing trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00678392. Findings Median overall survival was 20·1 months (95% CI 16·7–23·4) with axitinib and 19·2 months (17·5–22·3) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR] 0·969, 95% CI 0·800–1·174; one-sided p=0·3744). Median investigator-assessed PFS was 8·3 months (95% CI 6·7–9·2) with axitinib and 5·7 months (4·7–6·5) with sorafenib (HR 0·656, 95% CI 0·552–0·779; one-sided p Interpretation Although overall survival, a secondary endpoint for the study, did not differ between the two groups, investigator-assessed PFS remained longer in the axitinib group compared with the sorafenib group. These results establish axitinib as a second-line treatment option for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Funding Pfizer Inc.

Epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine with or without panitumumab for patients with previously untreated advanced oesophagogastric cancer (REAL3): a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial

Abstract: Summary Background EGFR overexpression occurs in 27–55% of oesophagogastric adenocarcinomas, and correlates with poor prognosis. We aimed to assess addition of the anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab to epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (EOC) in patients with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Methods In this randomised, open-label phase 3 trial (REAL3), we enrolled patients with untreated, metastatic, or locally advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma at 63 centres (tertiary referral centres, teaching hospitals, and district general hospitals) in the UK. Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive up to eight 21-day cycles of open-label EOC (epirubicin 50 mg/m 2 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m 2 on day 1 and capecitabine 1250 mg/m 2 per day on days 1–21) or modified-dose EOC plus panitumumab (mEOC+P; epirubicin 50 mg/m 2 and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m 2 on day 1, capecitabine 1000 mg/m 2 per day on days 1–21, and panitumumab 9 mg/kg on day 1). Randomisation was blocked and stratified for centre region, extent of disease, and performance status. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. After a preplanned independent data monitoring committee review in October, 2011, trial recruitment was halted and panitumumab withdrawn. Data for patients on treatment were censored at this timepoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00824785. Findings Between June 2, 2008, and Oct 17, 2011, we enrolled 553 eligible patients. Median overall survival in 275 patients allocated EOC was 11·3 months (95% CI 9·6–13·0) compared with 8·8 months (7·7–9·8) in 278 patients allocated mEOC+P (hazard ratio [HR] 1·37, 95% CI 1·07–1·76; p=0·013). mEOC+P was associated with increased incidence of grade 3–4 diarrhoea (48 [17%] of 276 patients allocated mEOC+P vs 29 [11%] of 266 patients allocated EOC), rash (29 [11%] vs two [1%]), mucositis (14 [5%] vs none), and hypomagnesaemia (13 [5%] vs none) but reduced incidence of haematological toxicity (grade ≥3 neutropenia 35 [13%] vs 74 [28%]). Interpretation Addition of panitumumab to EOC chemotherapy does not increase overall survival and cannot be recommended for use in an unselected population with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Funding Amgen, UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre.

Selumetinib plus docetaxel for KRAS-mutant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study

Abstract: Summary Background No targeted therapies are available for KRAS -mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Selumetinib is an inhibitor of MEK1/MEK2, downstream of KRAS, with preclinical evidence of synergistic activity with docetaxel in KRAS -mutant cancers. We did a prospective, randomised, phase 2 trial to assess selumetinib plus docetaxel in previously treated patients with advanced KRAS -mutant NSCLC. Methods Eligible patients were older than 18 years of age; had histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IIIB–IV KRAS -mutant NSCLC; had failed first-line therapy for advanced NSCLC; had WHO performance status of 0–1; had not received previous therapy with either a MEK inhibitor or docetaxel; and had adequate bone marrow, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to either oral selumetinib (75 mg twice daily in a 21 day cycle) or placebo; all patients received intravenous docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 on day 1 of a 21 day cycle). Randomisation was done with an interactive voice response system and investigators, patients, data analysts, and the trial sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed for all patients with confirmed KRAS mutations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00890825. Findings Between April 20, 2009, and June 30, 2010, we randomly assigned 44 patients to receive selumetinib and docetaxel (selumetinib group) and 43 to receive placebo and docetaxel (placebo group). Of these, one patient in the selumetinib group and three in the placebo group were excluded from efficacy analyses because their tumours were not confirmed to be KRAS -mutation positive. Median overall survival was 9·4 months (6·8–13·6) in the selumetinib group and 5·2 months (95% CI 3·8–non-calculable) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] for death 0·80, 80% CI 0·56–1·14; one-sided p=0·21). Median progression-free survival was 5·3 months (4·6–6·4) in the selumetinib group and 2·1 months (95% CI 1·4–3·7) in the placebo group (HR for progression 0·58, 80% CI 0·42–0·79; one-sided p=0·014). 16 (37%) patients in the selumetinib group and none in the placebo group had an objective response (p vs 23 [55%] of 42 patients in the placebo group), febrile neutropenia (eight [18%] of 44 patients in the selumetinib group vs none in the placebo group), dyspnoea (one [2%] of 44 patients in the selumetinib group vs five [12%] of 42 in the placebo group), and asthenia (four [9%] of 44 patients in the selumetinib group vs none in the placebo group). Interpretation Selumetinib plus docetaxel has promising efficacy, albeit with a higher number of adverse events than with docetaxel alone, in previously treated advanced KRAS -mutant NSCLC. These findings warrant further clinical investigation of selumetinib plus docetaxel in KRAS -mutant NSCLC. Funding AstraZeneca.

Intraoperative radiotherapy versus external radiotherapy for early breast cancer (ELIOT): a randomised controlled equivalence trial

Abstract: Methods This study was done at the European Institute of Oncology (Milan, Italy). Women aged 48–75 years with early breast cancer, a maximum tumour diameter of up to 2·5 cm, and suitable for breast-conserving surgery were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio (using a random permuted block design, stratifi ed for clinical tumour size [<1·0 cm vs 1·0–1·4 cm vs ≥1·5 cm]) to receive either whole-breast external radiotherapy or intraoperative radiotherapy with electrons. Study coordinators, clinicians, and patients were aware of the assignment. Patients in the intraoperative radiotherapy group received one dose of 21 Gy to the tumour bed during surgery. Those in the external radiotherapy group received 50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2 Gy, followed by a boost of 10 Gy in fi ve fractions. This was an equivalence trial; the prespecifi ed equivalence margin was local recurrence of 7·5% in the intraoperative radiotherapy group. The primary endpoint was occurrence of ipsilateral breast tumour recurrences (IBTR); overall survival was a secondary outcome. The main analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01849133. Findings 1305 patients were randomised (654 to external radiotherapy and 651 to intraoperative radiotherapy) between Nov 20, 2000, and Dec 27, 2007. Af ter a medium follow-up of 5·8 years (IQR 4·1–7·7), 35 patients in the intraoperative radiotherapy group and four patients in the external radiotherapy group had had an IBTR (p<0·0001). The 5-year event rate for IBRT was 4·4% (95% CI 2·7–6·1) in the intraoperative radiotherapy group and 0·4% (0·0–1·0) in the external radiotherapy group (hazard ratio 9·3 [95% CI 3·3–26·3]). During the same period, 34 women allocated to intraoperative radiotherapy and 31 to external radiotherapy died (p=0·59). 5-year overall survival was 96·8% (95% CI 95·3–98·3) in the intraoperative radiotherapy group and 96·9% (95·5–98·3) in the external radiotherapy group. In patients with data available (n=464 for intraoperative radiotherapy; n=412 for external radiotherapy) we noted signifi cantly fewer skin side-eff ects in women in the intraoperative radiotherapy group than in those in the external radiotherapy group (p=0·0002). Interpretation Although the rate of IBTR in the intraoperative radiotherapy group was within the prespecifi ed equivalence margin, the rate was signifi cantly greater than with external radiotherapy , and overall survival did not diff er between groups. Improved selection of patients could reduce the rate of IBTR with intraoperative radiotherapy with electrons.

Safety and activity of crizotinib for paediatric patients with refractory solid tumours or anaplastic large-cell lymphoma: a Children's Oncology Group phase 1 consortium study

Abstract: Summary Background Various human cancers have ALK gene translocations, amplifications, or oncogenic mutations, such as anaplastic large-cell lymphoma, inflammatory myofibroblastic tumours, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and neuroblastoma. Therefore, ALK inhibition could be a useful therapeutic strategy in children. We aimed to determine the safety, recommended phase 2 dose, and antitumour activity of crizotinib in children with refractory solid tumours and anaplastic large-cell lymphoma. Methods In this open-label, phase 1 dose-escalation trial, patients older than 12 months and younger than 22 years with measurable or evaluable solid or CNS tumours, or anaplastic large-cell lymphoma, refractory to therapy and for whom there was no known curative treatment were eligible. Crizotinib was given twice daily without interruption. Six dose levels (100, 130, 165, 215, 280, 365 mg/m 2 per dose) were assessed in the dose-finding phase of the study (part A1), which is now completed. The primary endpoint was to estimate the maximum tolerated dose, to define the toxic effects of crizotinib, and to characterise the pharmacokinetics of crizotinib in children with refractory cancer. Additionally, patients with confirmed ALK translocations, mutations, or amplification (part A2 of the study) or neuroblastoma (part A3) could enrol at one dose level lower than was currently given in part A1. We assessed ALK genomic status in tumour tissue and used quantitative RT-PCR to measure NPM-ALK fusion transcript in bone marrow and blood samples of patients with anaplastic large-cell lymphoma. All patients who received at least one dose of crizotinib were evaluable for response; patients completing at least one cycle of therapy or experiencing dose limiting toxicity before that were considered fully evaluable for toxicity. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00939770. Findings 79 patients were enrolled in the study from Oct 2, 2009, to May 31, 2012. The median age was 10·1 years (range 1·1–21·4); 43 patients were included in the dose escalation phase (A1), 25 patients in part A2, and 11 patients in part A3. Crizotinib was well tolerated with a recommended phase 2 dose of 280 mg/m 2 twice daily. Grade 4 adverse events in cycle 1 were neutropenia (two) and liver enzyme elevation (one). Grade 3 adverse events that occurred in more than one patient in cycle 1 were lymphopenia (two), and neutropenia (eight). The mean steady state peak concentration of crizotinib was 630 ng/mL and the time to reach this peak was 4 h (range 1–6). Objective tumour responses were documented in 14 of 79 patients (nine complete responses, five partial responses); and the anti-tumour activity was enriched in patients with known activating ALK aberrations (eight of nine with anaplastic large-cell lymphoma, one of 11 with neuroblastoma, three of seven with inflammatory myofibroblastic tumour, and one of two with NSCLC). Interpretation The findings suggest that a targeted inhibitor of ALK has antitumour activity in childhood malignancies harbouring ALK translocations, particularly anaplastic large-cell lymphoma and inflammatory myofibroblastic tumours, and that further investigation in the subset of neuroblastoma harbouring known ALK oncogenic mutations is warranted. Funding Pfizer and National Cancer Institute grant to the Children's Oncology Group.

Lapatinib Plus Capecitabine in Patients With Previously Untreated Brain Metastases From HER2-positive Metastatic Breast Cancer (LANDSCAPE): A Single-Group Phase 2 Study

Abstract: Summary Background Brain metastases occur in 30–50% of patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. In the case of diffuse brain metastases, treatment is based on whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT). Few systemic options are available. We aimed to investigate the combination of lapatinib plus capecitabine for the treatment of previously untreated brain metastases from HER2-positive breast cancer. Methods In this single-arm phase 2, open-label, multicentre study, eligible patients had HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer with brain metastases not previously treated with WBRT, capecitabine, or lapatinib. Tretament was given in 21 day cycles: patients received lapatinib (1250 mg, orally) every day and capecitabine (2000 mg/m 2 , orally) from day 1 to day 14. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with an objective CNS response, defined as a 50% or greater volumetric reduction of CNS lesions in the absence of increased steroid use, progressive neurological symptoms, and progressive extra-CNS disease. All responses had to be confirmed 4 weeks after initial response. Efficacy analyses included all patients who received the study drugs and were assessable for efficacy criteria. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00967031. Findings Between April 15, 2009, to Aug 2, 2010, we enrolled 45 patients, 44 (98%) of whom were assessable for efficacy, with a median follow-up of 21·2 months (range 2·2–27·6). 29 patients had an objective CNS response (65·9%, 95% CI 50·1–79·5); all were partial responses. Of all 45 treated patients, 22 (49%) had grade 3 or grade 4 treatment-related adverse events, of which the most common were diarrhoea in nine (20%) patients and hand-foot syndrome in nine (20%) patients. 14 (31%) patients had at least one severe adverse event; treatment was discontinued because of toxicity in four patients. No toxic deaths occurred. Interpretation The combination of lapatinib and capecitabine is active as first-line treatment of brain metastases from HER2-positive breast cancer. A phase 3 trial is warranted. Funding GlaxoSmithKline-France and UNICANCER.

Depression and anxiety in long-term cancer survivors compared with spouses and healthy controls: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: Summary Background Cancer survival has improved in the past 20 years, affecting the long-term risk of mood disorders. We assessed whether depression and anxiety are more common in long-term survivors of cancer compared with their spouses and with healthy controls. Methods We systematically searched Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, Science Direct, Ingenta Select, Ovid, and Wiley Interscience for reports about the prevalence of mood disorders in patients diagnosed with cancer at least 2 years previously. We also searched the records of the International Psycho-oncology Society and for reports that cited relevant references. Three investigators independently extracted primary data. We did a random-effects meta-analysis of the prevalences of depression and anxiety in cancer patients compared with spouses and healthy controls. Findings Our search returned 144 results, 43 were included in the main analysis: for comparisons with healthy controls, 16 assessed depression and ten assessed anxiety; of the comparisons with spouses, 12 assessed depression and five assessed anxiety. The prevalence of depression was 11·6% (95% CI 7·7–16·2) in the pooled sample of 51 381 cancer survivors and 10·2% (8·0–12·6) in 217 630 healthy controls (pooled relative risk [RR] 1·11, 95% CI 0·96–1·27; p=0·17). The prevalence of anxiety was 17·9% (95% CI 12·8–23·6) in 48 964 cancer survivors and 13·9% (9·8–18·5) in 226 467 healthy controls (RR 1·27, 95% CI 1·08–1·50; p=0·0039). Neither the prevalence of depression (26·7% vs 26·3%; RR 1·01, 95% CI 0·86–1·20; p=0·88) nor the prevalence of anxiety (28·0% vs 40·1%; RR 0·71, 95% CI 0·44–1·14; p=0·16) differed significantly between cancer patients and their spouses. Interpretation Our findings suggest that anxiety, rather than depression, is most likely to be a problem in long-term cancer survivors and spouses compared with healthy controls. Efforts should be made to improve recognition and treatment of anxiety in long-term cancer survivors and their spouses. Funding None.

Induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (sequential chemoradiotherapy) versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in locally advanced head and neck cancer (PARADIGM): a randomised phase 3 trial.

Abstract: Summary Background The relative efficacy of the addition of induction chemotherapy to chemoradiotherapy compared with chemoradiotherapy alone for patients with head and neck cancer is unclear. The PARADIGM study is a multicentre open-label phase 3 study comparing the use of docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (TPF) induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer. Methods Adult patients with previously untreated, non-metastatic, newly diagnosed head and neck cancer were eligible. Patients were eligible if their tumour was either unresectable or of low surgical curability on the basis of advanced tumour stage (3 or 4) or regional-node stage (2 or 3, except T1N2), or if they were a candidate for organ preservation. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive either induction chemotherapy with three cycles of TPF followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy with either docetaxel or carboplatin or concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone with two cycles of bolus cisplatin. A computer-generated randomisation schedule using minimisation was prepared and the treatment assignment was done centrally at one of the study sites. Patients, study staff, and investigators were not masked to group assignment. Stratification factors were WHO performance status, primary disease site, and stage. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. Patient accrual was terminated in December, 2008, because of slow enrolment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00095875. Findings Between Aug 24, 2004, and Dec 29, 2008, we enrolled 145 patients across 16 sites. After a median follow-up of 49 months (IQR 39–63), 41 patients had died—20 in the induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy group and 21 in the chemoradiotherapy alone group. 3-year overall survival was 73% (95% CI 60–82) in the induction therapy followed by chemoradiotherapy group and 78% (66–86) in the chemoradiotherapy alone group (hazard ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·59–2·03; p=0·77). More patients had febrile neutropenia in the induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy group (16 patients) than in the chemoradiotherapy alone group (one patient). Interpretation Although survival results were good in both groups there was no difference noted between those patients treated with induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy and those who received chemoradiotherapy alone. We cannot rule out the possibility of a difference in survival going undetected due to early termination of the trial. Clinicians should still use their best judgment, based on the available data, in the decision of how to best treat patients. The addition of induction chemotherapy remains an appropriate approach for advanced disease with high risk for local or distant failure. Funding Sanofi-Aventis.

Androgen-deprivation therapy alone or with docetaxel in non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer (GETUG-AFU 15): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Abstract: Summary Background Early chemotherapy might improve the overall outcomes of patients with metastatic non-castrate (ie, hormone-sensitive) prostate cancer. We investigated the effects of the addition of docetaxel to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for patients with metastatic non-castrate prostate cancer. Methods In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study, we enrolled patients in 29 centres in France and one in Belgium. Eligible patients were older than 18 years and had histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate and radiologically proven metastatic disease; a Karnofsky score of at least 70%; a life expectancy of at least 3 months; and adequate hepatic, haematological, and renal function. They were randomly assigned to receive to ADT (orchiectomy or luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists, alone or combined with non-steroidal antiandrogens) alone or in combination with docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 intravenously on the first day of each 21-day cycle; up to nine cycles). Patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio, with dynamic minimisation to minimise imbalances in previous systemic treatment with ADT, chemotherapy for local disease or isolated rising concentration of serum prostate-specific antigen, and Glass risk groups. Patients, physicians, and data analysts were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00104715. Findings Between Oct 18, 2004, and Dec 31, 2008, 192 patients were randomly allocated to receive ADT plus docetaxel and 193 to receive ADT alone. Median follow-up was 50 months (IQR 39–63). Median overall survival was 58·9 months (95% CI 50·8–69·1) in the group given ADT plus docetaxel and 54·2 months (42·2–not reached) in that given ADT alone (hazard ratio 1·01, 95% CI 0·75–1·36). 72 serious adverse events were reported in the group given ADT plus docetaxel, of which the most frequent were neutropenia (40 [21%]), febrile neutropenia (six [3%]), abnormal liver function tests (three [2%]), and neutropenia with infection (two [1%]). Four treatment-related deaths occurred in the ADT plus docetaxel group (two of which were neutropenia-related), after which the data monitoring committee recommended treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. After this recommendation, no further treatment-related deaths occurred. No serious adverse events were reported in the ADT alone group. Interpretation Docetaxel should not be used as part of first-line treatment for patients with non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer. Funding French Health Ministry and Institut National du Cancer (PHRC), Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, and Amgen.

MEK162 for patients with advanced melanoma harbouring NRAS or Val600 BRAF mutations: a non-randomised, open-label phase 2 study

Abstract: Summary Background Patients with melanoma harbouring Val600 BRAF mutations benefit from treatment with BRAF inhibitors. However, no targeted treatments exist for patients with BRAF wild-type tumours, including those with NRAS mutations. We aimed to assess the use of MEK162, a small-molecule MEK1/2 inhibitor, in patients with NRAS -mutated or Val600 BRAF -mutated advanced melanoma. Methods In our open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 study, we assigned patients with NRAS -mutated or BRAF -mutated advanced melanoma to one of three treatment arms on the basis of mutation status. Patients were enrolled at university hospitals or private cancer centres in Europe and the USA. The three arms were: twice-daily MEK162 45 mg for NRAS -mutated melanoma, twice-daily MEK162 45 mg for BRAF -mutated melanoma, and twice-daily MEK162 60 mg for BRAF -mutated melanoma. Previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors was permitted, but previous MEK inhibitor therapy was not allowed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had an objective response (ie, a complete response or confirmed partial response). We report data for the 45 mg groups. We assessed clinical activity in all patients who received at least one dose of MEK162 and in patients assessable for response (with two available CT scans). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01320085, and is currently recruiting additional patients with NRAS mutations (based on a protocol amendment). Findings Between March 31, 2011, and Jan 17, 2012, we enrolled 71 patients who received at least one dose of MEK162 45 mg. By Feb 29, 2012 (data cutoff), median follow-up was 3·3 months (range 0·6–8·7; IQR 2·2–5·0). No patients had a complete response. Six (20%) of 30 patients with NRAS -mutated melanoma had a partial response (three confirmed) as did eight (20%) of 41 patients with BRAF -mutated melanoma (two confirmed). The most frequent adverse events were acneiform dermatitis (18 [60%] patients with NRAS -mutated melanoma and 15 [37%] patients with the BRAF -mutated melanoma), rash (six [20%] and 16 [39%]), peripheral oedema (ten [33%] and 14 [34%]), facial oedema (nine [30%] and seven [17%]), diarrhoea (eight [27%] and 15 [37%]), and creatine phosphokinase increases (11 [37%] and nine [22%]). Increased creatine phosphokinase was the most common grade 3–4 adverse event (seven [23%] and seven [17%]). Four patients had serious adverse events (two per arm), which included diarrhoea, dehydration, acneiform dermatitis, general physical deterioration, irregular heart rate, malaise, and small intestinal perforation. No deaths occurred from treatment-related causes. Interpretation To our knowledge, MEK162 is the first targeted therapy to show activity in patients with NRAS -mutated melanoma and might offer a new option for a cancer with few effective treatments. Funding Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Mitomycin or cisplatin chemoradiation with or without maintenance chemotherapy for treatment of squamous-cell carcinoma of the anus (ACT II): a randomised, phase 3, open-label, 2×2 factorial trial

Abstract: Summary Background Chemoradiation became the standard of care for anal cancer after the ACT I trial. However, only two-thirds of patients achieved local control, with 5-year survival of 50%; therefore, better treatments are needed. We investigated whether replacing mitomycin with cisplatin in chemoradiation improves response, and whether maintenance chemotherapy after chemoradiation improves survival. Methods In this 2×2 factorial trial, we enrolled patients with histologically confirmed squamous-cell carcinoma of the anus without metastatic disease from 59 centres in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four groups, to receive either mitomycin (12 mg/m 2 on day 1) or cisplatin (60 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 29), with fluorouracil (1000 mg/m 2 per day on days 1–4 and 29–32) and radiotherapy (50·4 Gy in 28 daily fractions); with or without two courses of maintenance chemotherapy (fluorouracil and cisplatin at weeks 11 and 14). The random allocation was generated by computer and patients assigned by telephone. Randomisation was done by minimisation and stratified by tumour site, T and N stage, sex, age, and renal function. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to assignment. Primary endpoints were complete response at 26 weeks and acute toxic effects (for chemoradiation), and progression-free survival (for maintenance). The primary analyses were done by intention to treat. This study is registered at controlled-trials.com, number 26715889. Findings We enrolled 940 patients: 472 were assigned to mitomycin, of whom 246 were assigned to no maintenance, 226 to maintenance; 468 were assigned to cisplatin, of whom 246 were assigned to no maintenance, 222 to maintenance. Median follow-up was 5·1 years (IQR 3·9–6·9). 391 of 432 (90·5%) patients in the mitomycin group versus 386 of 431 (89·6%) in the cisplatin group had a complete response at 26 weeks (difference −0·9%, 95% CI −4·9 to 3·1; p=0·64). Overall, toxic effects were similar in each group (334/472 [71%] for mitomycin vs 337/468 [72%] for cisplatin). The most common grade 3–4 toxic effects were skin (228/472 [48%] vs 222/468 [47%]), pain (122/472 [26%] vs 135/468 [29%]), haematological (124/472 [26%] vs 73/468 [16%]), and gastrointestinal (75/472 [16%] vs 85/468 [18%]). 3-year progression-free survival was 74% (95% CI 69–77; maintenance) versus 73% (95% CI 68–77; no maintenance; hazard ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·75–1·21; p=0·70). Interpretation The results of our trial—the largest in anal cancer to date—show that fluorouracil and mitomycin with 50·4 Gy radiotherapy in 28 daily fractions should remain standard practice in the UK. Funding Cancer Research UK.

CH5424802 (RO5424802) for patients with ALK-rearranged advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (AF-001JP study): a single-arm, open-label, phase 1–2 study

Abstract: Summary Background Currently, crizotinib is the only drug that has been approved for treatment of ALK -rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to study the activity and safety of CH5424802, a potent, selective, and orally available ALK inhibitor. Methods In this multicentre, single-arm, open-label, phase 1–2 study of CH5424802, we recruited ALK inhibitor-naive patients with ALK -rearranged advanced NSCLC from 13 hospitals in Japan. In the phase 1 portion of the study, patients received CH5424802 orally twice daily by dose escalation. The primary endpoints of the phase 1 were dose limiting toxicity (DLT), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and pharmacokinetic parameters. In the phase 2 portion of the study, patients received CH5424802 at the recommended dose identified in the phase 1 portion of the study orally twice a day. The primary endpoint of the phase 2 was the proportion of patients who had an objective response. Treatment was continued in 21-day cycles until disease progression, intolerable adverse events, or withdrawal of consent. The analysis was done by intent to treat. This study is registered with the Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center, number JapicCTI-101264. Findings Patients were enrolled between Sept 10, 2010, and April 18, 2012. The data cutoff date was July 31, 2012. In the phase 1 portion, 24 patients were treated at doses of 20–300 mg twice daily. No DLTs or adverse events of grade 4 were noted up to the highest dose; thus 300 mg twice daily was the recommended phase 2 dose. In the phase 2 portion of the study, 46 patients were treated with the recommended dose, of whom 43 achieved an objective response (93·5%, 95% CI 82·1–98·6) including two complete responses (4·3%, 0·5–14·8) and 41 partial responses (89·1%, 76·4–96·4). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 were recorded in 12 (26%) of 46 patients, including two patients each experiencing decreased neutrophil count and increased blood creatine phosphokinase. Serious adverse events occurred in five patients (11%). No grade 4 adverse events or deaths were reported. The study is still ongoing, since 40 of the 46 patients in the phase 2 portion remain on treatment. Interpretation CH5424802 is well tolerated and highly active in patients with advanced ALK -rearranged NSCLC. Funding Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd.

Bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone in elderly patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (AVEX): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial

Abstract: Summary Background Elderly patients are often under-represented in clinical trials of metastatic colorectal cancer. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab plus capecitabine compared with capecitabine alone in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods For this open-label, randomised phase 3 trial, patients aged 70 years and older with previously untreated, unresectable, metastatic colorectal cancer, who were not deemed to be candidates for oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based chemotherapy regimens, were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio via an interactive voice-response system, stratified by performance status and geographical region. Treatment consisted of capecitabine (1000 mg/m 2 orally twice a day on days 1–14) alone or with bevacizumab (7·5 mg/kg intravenously on day 1), given every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Efficacy analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00484939. Findings From July 9, 2007, to Dec 14, 2010, 280 patients with a median age of 76 years (range 70–87) were recruited from 40 sites across ten countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either bevacizumab plus capecitabine (n=140) or capecitabine only (n=140). Progression-free survival was significantly longer with bevacizumab and capecitabine than with capecitabine alone (median 9·1 months [95% CI 7·3–11·4] vs 5·1 months [4·2–6·3]; hazard ratio 0·53 [0·41–0·69]; p vs nine [7%]), diarrhoea (nine [7%] vs nine [7%]), and venous thromboembolic events (11 [8%] vs six [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in five patients in the combination group and four in the capecitabine group. The most common any-grade adverse event of special interest for bevacizumab was haemorrhage (34 [25%] vs nine [7%]). Interpretation The combination of bevacizumab and capecitabine is an effective and well-tolerated regimen for elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Tivantinib for second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study

Abstract: Summary Background Tivantinib (ARQ 197), a selective oral inhibitor of MET, has shown promising antitumour activity in hepatocellular carcinoma as monotherapy and in combination with sorafenib. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of tivantinib for second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods In this completed, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 study, we enrolled patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh A cirrhosis who had progressed on or were unable to tolerate first-line systemic therapy. We randomly allocated patients 2:1 to receive tivantinib (360 mg twice-daily) or placebo until disease progression. The tivantinib dose was amended to 240 mg twice-daily because of high incidence of treatment-emergent grade 3 or worse neutropenia. Randomisation was done centrally by an interactive voice-response system, stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and vascular invasion. The primary endpoint was time to progression, according to independent radiological review in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed tumour samples for MET expression with immunohistochemistry (high expression was regarded as ≥2+ in ≥50% of tumour cells). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00988741. Findings 71 patients were randomly assigned to receive tivantinib (38 at 360 mg twice-daily and 33 at 240 mg twice-daily); 36 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo. At the time of analysis, 46 (65%) patients in the tivantinib group and 26 (72%) of those in the placebo group had progressive disease. Time to progression was longer for patients treated with tivantinib (1·6 months [95% CI 1·4–2·8]) than placebo (1·4 months [1·4–1·5]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·64, 90% CI 0·43–0·94; p=0·04). For patients with MET-high tumours, median time to progression was longer with tivantinib than for those on placebo (2·7 months [95% CI 1·4–8·5] for 22 MET-high patients on tivantinib vs 1·4 months [1·4–1·6] for 15 MET-high patients on placebo; HR 0·43, 95% CI 0·19–0·97; p=0·03). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the tivantinib group were neutropenia (ten patients [14%] vs none in the placebo group) and anaemia (eight [11%] vs none in the placebo group). Eight patients (21%) in the tivantinib 360 mg group had grade 3 or worse neutropenia compared with two (6%) patients in the 240 mg group. Four deaths related to tivantinib occurred from severe neutropenia. 24 (34%) patients in the tivantinib group and 14 (39%) patients in the placebo group had serious adverse events. Interpretation Tivantinib could provide an option for second-line treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and well-compensated liver cirrhosis, particularly for patients with MET-high tumours. Confirmation in a phase 3 trial is needed, with a starting dose of tivantinib 240 mg twice-daily. Funding ArQule, Daiichi Sankyo (Daiichi Sankyo Group).